Perspectives on the Ending of Mark: Four Views

Perspectives

by David Alan Black, Maurice Robinson (Editor), Keith Elliott

Because it is conspicuously absent from more than one early Greek manuscript, the final section of the gospel of Mark (16:9-20) that details Christ’s resurrection remains a constant source of debate among serious students of the New Testament.

Perspectives on the Ending of Mark presents in counterpoint form the split opinions about this difficult passage with a goal of determining which is more likely. Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary professors Maurice Robinson and David Alan Black argue for the verses’ authenticity. Keith Elliott (University of Leeds) and Daniel Wallace (Dallas Theological Seminary) contend that they are not original to Mark’s gospel. Darrell Bock (Dallas Theological Seminary) responds to each view and summarizes the state of current research on the entire issue.

Genres: Christian, Theology, Biblical Studies, New Testament, Scripture, Nonfiction

160 pages, Paperback

First published November 1, 2008

Reviews

[David J. Harris · Rating 5 out of 5]

This work was the result of a conference held in 2007 at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. The issue under debate is the legitimacy of the ending of Mark's Gospel (16:9-20). Three conservatives and one liberal were in the discussion. The conversation between the three scholars who all affirm inerrancy were of the greatest interest to me.

Dan Wallace (DTS) argues that the short ending (16:8) is authentic. He draws heavily on external and internal evidence, and makes several fair concessions to arguments that oppose his position. I cannot conclude that Wallace provided enough evidence to definitively remove the long ending, but his arguments are thorough and well thought out. He admits his bias to Siniaticus and Vaticanus. At the end of the day, I do not embrace his position, but his arguments are coherent and forced me to rethink my assessment of the issue. I also have to say that this is not a condemnation of Wallace: his writing elsewhere have been helpful.

His presuppositions: inspiration - yes. Inerrancy - yes. Verbal preservation - no.

Maurice Robinson (SEBTS) argues that the long ending is authentic. He points out that although the earliest codexes available (I.e. Vaticanus and Sinaiticus) exclude the long ending, Justin Martyr and Ireaneus (2nd century apostolic fathers) quote from the long ending. Ireaneus' quote is especially interesting. He mentions that at the ending of Mark's Gospel, Jesus is said to sit at the right hand of God (Mark 16:19). This is not mentioned at the end of Matthew, Luke or John. Though Wallace is potentially correct in saying that the two aforementioned codexes are in line with manuscripts before the fourth century, that in no way diminishes Ireanues' quote that precedes these codexes by 200 years. Robinson also demonstrates that the supposed unusual language in the long ending is no less Markan than other passages. He also offers very convincing parallels that show how the long ending fits with the rest of the undisputed writing. Robinson's thoughts best reflect my conclusions.

His presuppositions: inspiration - yes. Inerrancy - yes. Verbal preservation - yes.

Keith Elliot (University of Leeds) is the liberal voice that joins the perspectives. He believes the long ending is not accurate, but he disagrees with Wallace that 16:8 was the original ending. He doesn't like how Mark ends so suddenly. He also doesn't like how it begins. He thinks there is both a lost ending (Westcott and Hort's theory, who also denied 16:8 was the end) and a lost beginning. His explanation for this is one of the most far fetched arguments I have read in a serious theological debate. He says that because in the first century, writings like this were transported by scrolls, the beginning and ending would have had the most wear and tear and greatest likelihood of disappearing or getting distorted over time. Seriously. That's his argument.

His presuppositions: inspiration - no. Inerrancy - no. Verbal preservation - no.

David Black (SEBTS) argues along with Maurice Robinson that the long ending is original. He believes that there is a style change in the long ending, because Mark penned 1:1-16:8 from the mouth of Peter, and wrote 16:9-16:20 after Peter's martyrdom. His explanation for this is interesting but very subjective. A lot of his major points contributed little to the discussion.

His presuppositions: inspiration: yes. Inerrancy - yes. Verbal preservation - yes.

[Neil Richardson · Rating 4 out of 5]

Academic but accessible

2 Timothy 3:16 instructs us that “all Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness”. Psalm 12:6 tells us that “the words of the LORD are flawless, like silver purified in a crucible, like gold refined seven times”. The Bible consistently presents itself as inspired, as the very words of God.

But is what we are reading today the Scripture as God originally breathed it through the minds and pens of the inspired writers? Our nine New Testament authors (Mathew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, the author of Hebrews, James, Peter and Jude) wrote in Greek, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Their original manuscripts are known as ‘autographs’ but these have all been lost, most probably through wear and tear, like any book that is well used.

So now we depend on multiple copies of these texts to piece together complete Greek New Testaments which scholars can use to translate from into target languages like English.

Most of the time, we have so many copies of the different NT books that most of the discrepancies can be eliminated and we can have a pretty strong understanding of what the original verses were.

But in the case of the ending of Mark, there is a big debate. There are at least four perspectives on it, as outlined in this brisk and readable book. Here are my summaries of the pros and cons, both from the book and also from my own reflections:

1. The Shorter Ending
Mark deliberately ended his gospel at 16:8
+ Two of the most impressive, earliest complete NT manuscripts have this shorter ending - Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph) and Codex Vaticanus (B)
- It seems weird that Mark would finish his book on the phrase “because they were afraid” (ending on the preposition ‘gar’ in the Greek). Mark is quite a literal writer in the rest of his gospel and he tends to spell out the things that have earlier been predicted, such as, for example, the healing of the the demonised girl (Mark 7:29,30). It seems unlikely that he would write about Jesus’ resurrection without actually including any resurrection appearances (as other three gospels do).

2. The Longer Ending
Mark ended his gospel at 16:20
+ The vast majority of manuscripts include verses 9-20
+ It seems likely that Mark would finish his gospel with resurrection appearances - there are ‘bookend’ parallels with Mark chapter 1
- Some of the vocabulary and grammar doesn’t seem Markan
- There is some strange stuff here about snake-handling and drinking poison (though Paul does get bitten by a snake and survives in Acts 28)
- Verse 9 doesn’t seem to follow on very smoothly from verse 8

3. The Lost Ending
Mark went beyond verse 8 but the ending was lost
+ This overcomes the odd “They said nothing to anyone because they were afraid” ending, which appears to have the women disobeying the angelic command to “go and tell”
+ It explains why there are at least two different variants (the Longer Ending and also the Intermediate Ending which includes a brief version of the Great Commission), as other scribes tried to compensate for the lost ending
- There isn’t really any evidence for it and it seems odd that it would be lost before any copies could be made and distributed
- It militates against the doctrine of preservation, that is that God has not only inspired his Word, but has preserved it; Jesus says in Matthew 5:18 that “until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished”. Why would God inspire Mark to write an ending and then allow that ending to be lost forever?

4. The Supplement Ending
Mark himself went back and wrote vv.9-20 as a supplement to his original gospel
+ Explains why some manuscripts have the Shorter Ending (Mark’s first edition) and some have the Longer Ending (his revised edition)
+ Might explain slight shifts in style if he’s writing at a later date
- Some scholars think the passage entirely lacks the typical Markan flavour
- Would God inspire Mark to stop and then later revise his gospel like this?

The book is an academic debate, has some banter in it which is quite enjoyable, but suffers (I think) from the typical academic lack of doxology or devotion or confidence in the inspiring and preserving work of the Holy Spirit.

I enjoyed trying to wrap my head this critical issue. It’s important we have confidence that what we are reading is God’s Word, and that God’s Spirit can speak to us through all of it. But it’s also important that we don’t sidestep difficult issues, and try to figure out whether we should be leaning on Mark 16:9-20 as inspired Scripture or on a level with something like the Apocrypha instead (useful, historical, but not inspired). Whatever the case, thankfully, everything crucial contained in those final 12 verses is elsewhere in the Bible so we aren’t lacking anything of God’s revelation to us about the resurrection of his Son, which is what it’s all about!

[Daniel Ligon · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very good book though a bit technical (a fair amount of references to Greek grammar and manuscript numbers). This book examines the ending of Mark from four different perspectives. Does Mark end at 16:8 (Short Ending=SE) or at Mark 16:20 (Long Ending=LE)? This passage is one of the clearest differences between the Majority Text and Minority Text.

In Chapter 1, Daniel Wallace argues for the SE being the original text. In Chapter 2, Maurice Robinson presents Mark 16:9-20 as part of the canon. In Chapter 3, J. Keith Elliot explains his position that there was a different ending to Mark that has since been lost, but what has come down to us in verses 9-20 is not original. In Chapter 4, David Alan Black argues that Mark added verses 9-20 shortly after he originally wrote the book, and thus that they are part of the canon of Scripture. (Black's chapter is mostly devoted to his idea of what the timeline of the origin of the Gospels looked like. While not completely implausible, his timeline is highly speculative.) Chapter 5, written by Darrell Bock, is supposed to be a summary and overall view of the question, but Bock reveals his bias and basically spends the chapter rehashing Wallace's position and contributing nothing new to the discussion.

I went into this book without much prior study of the question. I found the SE arguments very unconvincing. There are a few major areas of discussion:
Manuscripts- Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, and a few others support the SE; 95-99% of manuscripts support the LE.
Church Fathers- Eusebius supports the SE, but Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Jerome, Victor of Antioch, and many others used the LE.
Motive- it's debatable whether a scribe would be more likely to add to or take away from Scripture, but while 12 verses could be lost accidentally, they certainly could not be added accidentally.
Internal Evidence- those who prefer the SE cite differences in grammar, structure and wording in their claim that the last verses are not authentic, but this evidence seems at best inconclusive. Elliot, in chapter 3, uses similar differences to dispute the authorship of the beginning of Mark as well as several other passages of Scripture.

In summary, the evidence appears to me to be substantially in favor of the canonicity of the LE. In my opinion, the only likely way to arrive at a different conclusion is to place too much weight on just two manuscripts, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, to the neglect of the overwhelming testimony of the vast majority of the manuscripts. Robinson sums it up well in Chapter 2: "Were the LE not absent from codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, the few manuscripts that contain both the Long and Intermediate Endings, and the limited adverse versional and patristic testimony would not be sufficient to maintain the controversy."

[Jonathan Ammon · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excellent collection of essays on the ending of Mark. I particularly enjoyed Wallace, Robinson, and Black. Elliot's essay is perhaps representative of a popular approach in biblical scholarship, but strikes me as poor in its approach to evidence, argumentation, and probability. The concluding essay by Block didn't add much and piled on to the most popular view, but perhaps that is the prerogative of those who hold the majority. I still do not understand why other variants with less strong attestation in external evidence are held to be genuine while the Long Ending of Mark is not. Siniaticus and Vaticanus do not overturn the rest of the evidence in other cases. I find myself somewhere between Robinson and Black, finding Black's approach similar to my own, but not having the same confidence in Black's account of the origin of the gospels (though I do hold to Matthean priority).

[Greg Wilson · Rating 4 out of 5]

I am preaching through the gospel of Mark. From the outset, I knew I had to decide how I was going to approach the last 12 verses. In the past, the question of when does Mark’s Gospel end would not have been a problem. Preaching from the King James to people reading the King James doesn’t necessitate an explanation. Other than that part about handling snakes I mean. And drinking poison (Mark 16:18). Besides, I could just camp on Mark 16:15 and be done with it. That was then. This is now. I preach from the NASB. My folks carry a variety of translations. The NIV makes a clear distinction separating vs. 8 from vss. 9-20. Most of the others simply use brackets with a footnote. In preparation I read this book edited by David Alan Black, who also served as one of the contributors.

Let’s start with the issue at hand. “Since the two most reliable early manuscripts do not have Mark 16:9-20” (as per the NIV) are the last 12 verses of the gospel of Mark authentic? Does Mark end his gospel at verse 8, as all the modern translations seem to suggest or did he end at verse 20, the so-called long ending (LE), as the majority of manuscripts do? I assumed it was an either or question, who knew there were four possible views! The book did a very good job of differentiating between them.

2 views that say Yes, the long ending is the right ending

Maurice Robinson is Senior Professor of New Testament at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary and the author of The New Testament in the Original Greek. He argues that Mark 16:9-20 is original. His is the traditional view that there is not enough evidence to the contrary to doubt the authenticity of the LE. You would think that his presentation would be the most easy to defend, given that his is the position with the most history behind it. Yet, he muddies the water by weaving his points around some century old poem. His defense made some very strong points, but ultimately left me unconvinced. (I’m not saying I am unconvinced the LE is authentic, just that he didn’t convince me.)

David Alan Black is Professor of New Testament and Greek at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary and the author of Learn to Read New Testament Greek and New Testament Textual Criticism. By the way, all these chapters were originally from a conference held at the aforementioned seminary. Black takes the view that the LE was written by Mark, but at a later date. “I am absolutely convinced that the Longer Ending is original based on the external evidence, and that it deserves the canonical status it has enjoyed throughout church history” (p. 103). He believes that the reason for the omissions in some of the manuscripts is because Mark’s original writing was composed as a record of Peter’s teachings (which validated the existing gospels of Matthew and Luke). After Peter’s martyrdom “(a)s an act of piety to the memory of Peter, Mark then decided to publish an edition of the text that would include the necessary sequel to the passion and death of the Master” (p. 120). Black argues a very interesting, but highly speculative theory to arrive at this conclusion.

2 views that say No, the long ending is not the right ending

Daniel B. Wallace argues for Mark 16:8 as being the conclusion to the Second Gospel. Wallace is Professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary and the author of Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics. The question “(w)hich is more likely- that scribes would intentionally omit vv. 9-20 or that they would add these verses?” (p. 10) forms the basis for his examination of the external evidence. As do the others, he also deals with the witness of the church fathers. “The patristic testimony thus reveals a very interesting trend: from the earliest discussion on the authenticity of this passage, the fathers indicate that most of the copies of Mark ended at 16:8” (p. 24). As far as internal evidence, Wallace argues that Mark may have intentionally ended with the women being afraid because of the place fear (or amazement) played in the second gospel.

For me, J. Keith Elliott’s position was the most problematic (or should I say disturbing?).
Elliott is Professor of New Testament Textual Criticism at the University of Leeds. He is the author of Manuscripts and the Text of the New Testament. He believes that the original ending was lost. Mark didn’t mean to end at verse 8, but we don’t have the ending. That idea doesn’t cause him any consternation, but inerrancy certainly does. “The textual problems at the end of Mark and indeed the fluid text in much of the New Testament as a whole make talk of inerrancy, as narrowly defined by some, indefensible” (p. 99). “The sooner that the language of inerrancy is dropped in the context of textual criticism the better it will be for scholarship” (p. 101).

Another Dallas Seminary professor, Darrell L. Bock provides a concluding response to the four essays. He is upfront that he believes that Mark ended his gospel at verse 8. “Mark’s ending matches the circumstances of his readers: the Resurrection is proclaimed and the only remaining issue is what will the one who hears about the Resurrection do with a risen Jesus. Mark’s ending assumes that the women did emerge from their silence and fear to believe and proclaim” (p. 140). He acknowledges all of the authors look at the external and internal evidence and come to vastly different conclusions. “The problem of Mark’s ending is complex. All the elements of textual criticism are in play: external evidence, internal evidence, the views of the versions and father, and what Mark himself was trying to do” (p. 140).

I wouldn’t recommend this book to my average church member. But as a pastor (and not a scholar), I did find it helpful as I prepare my final sermon on Mark’s gospel.

[Joshua · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was a good read. I don't feel that I was swayed from my original position but I got a fair amount of exposure to other ways of articulating the mystery surrounding Mark's ending. I think the last article was the hardest to swallow. The level of detail he assumed about the creation of Mark's gospel really has no basis and appeared a flight of fantasy at times. Everyone did fantastic. Good solid work that will certainly challenge what you know or think you about the last chapter in Mark.

[Melissa · Rating 4 out of 5]

Newer translations of the Bible attach footnotes to the final verses of the Gospel of Mark (Mark 16:11-20) stating that they are not in the oldest and most reliable Greek manuscripts. But there are different viewpoints on what this means. This book is essays by four Bible scholars (3 evangelical, 1 liberal mainline) who have studied this issue and come to different conclusions. Two believe that the passage is authentic, and the other two do not.

So 2 out of about 1,000 Greek manuscripts have the short ending. However, those two are from the 4th century and the oldest manuscripts we have found (although we have record of early church fathers pre-dating the 4th century that quote the long ending). The short ending ends at a very odd place in the narrative, with the women disciples crying at the tomb and before the resurrection appearances, which really doesn't make sense. One proponent of the short ending says that the author was deliberately trying to shock his readers, and the other (the liberal) says that there must have been another ending that has been lost forever. There is disagreement about the extent to which the word choices in the long ending are consistent with the rest of the gospel of Mark, and how much this matters. Both of the two old manuscripts with the short ending have odd gaps of blank space following the short ending. Several relatively early Christians refer to gospels with both short and long endings being in circulation. There are other points on both sides.

Personally, I find the arguments for the long ending compelling. Also, I completely agree that the idea that the ancient writer of the Gospel of Mark was attempting a post-modern literary device for the ending of his gospel is highly implausible.

The scholars are insistent that theology should not have an influence on the analysis, but I guess I am not that sophisticated. The idea that a long passage was part of the Bible for almost 2,000 years and then suddenly discovered to be apocryphal seems to me a strain on our theology of inspiration and inerrancy. Some of the authors say that it really doesn't matter because most of the ideas in the long ending are in the rest of the Bible. But there is implication for scriptural reliability and our belief that every word is precious and important. With the evidence for the long ending, I'm not sure why we would rush to discard or undermine it.

[Mike · Rating 4 out of 5]

The ending of Mark is one of those difficult problems in the field of textual criticism. In this book we find the papers that were presented in 2007 at a conference dedicated to this topic. This multi-view book does not follow the standard format as the authors do not respond to each other.

Daniel B. Wallace represents the view that most scholars accept today. That Mark ended his gospel at 16:8

Maurice A. Robinson represents the view that Mark 16:9-20 are part of the original work Mark authored

J. Keith Elliot represents the view that Mark's original and intended ending is lost, and that what Mark wrote ends at 16:8

David A. Black suggests that Mark originally presented his gospel at a conference ending with 16:8 but later added 16:9-20

Darrell L. Bock closes the book and summarizes the situation. He admits holding the view that Mark ends at 16:8.

Black's presentation was the least convincing, and even Bock notes that the position lacks any "hard evidence". Other than this chapter, the rest presented a robust argument for their view. The external and internal evidence was reviewed and each offered pointed questions that should be considered by anyone examining the various positions.

Any reader that wants to get a good understanding of the situation regarding the end of Mark within the field of textual criticism and understand the different ways to assess the same set of facts will find this an excellent and readable resource.

Maurice Robinson offers a healthy reminder that regardless of which view one favors, all of the content contained in the possible endings are within the bounds of orthodoxy

The various endings of Mark are themselves “orthodox,” without any particular heretical or heterodox emphasis. These endings were used theologically and liturgically throughout church history without serious controversy

[Thomas · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book offers four views the contested ending(s) of the gospel of Mark. The first contributor, Daniel Wallace, argues for a reasoned eclecticism, and sees the external evidence in support of the short ending of Mark ending at 16:8. The second contributor, Maurice Robinson, takes a Byzantine-priority position, and, drawing on both internal and external evidence, argues that Mark 16:9-20 is part of the original text, with Mark himself as the likely author. The third contributor, J.K. Elliot, argues that the the ending of Mark could not be 16:8; rather, it is lost to us. The fourth contributor, D.A. Black, presents a reconstruction of the history of the early church which supports the priority of Matthew and thus the reason the Petrine authorship of Mark 1:1-16:8, with Mark, after Peter's martyrdom, adding the longer ending (16:9-20). As such, this ending is early and original, yet Black argues that this scenario accounts for the two different textual histories of the ending of Mark. Finally, Bock reviews the arguments stated in the book, and offers some further remarks in support of Mark ending at 16:8.

In summary, overall this is a helpful introduction to the question of the authenticity of the longer ending of Mark. Wallace was the only contributor besides the concluding writer (Bock) to support the most widely accepted view in scholarship that 16:8 is the original ending. Given this, it is my opinion that Wallace's essay could have been more thorough at points. Despite this, I would recommend this volume to anyone interested in an this vexed question.

[Meri · Rating 4 out of 5]

Quotes:
”Each of the contributors agrees on these points:
1. The variants we possess for the short and longer ending of Mark are both very old. This is one of the reasons we have the discussion that we do.
2. What is taught in the longer ending for the most part is taught elsewhere in the New Testament. This observation is important because it means the presence or absence of this text does not impact the core of Christian teaching at all. The best I can tell, only the issue of snake handling and drinking poison is at stake and that could be inferred from other texts as well (such as the incident with Paul in Acts 28).
3. Everyone desires to work with hard evidence.”

”Now readers may also have presuppositions, even tested ones. A question all of us must ask is this: If our presuppositions come under enough pressure will we be open enough to the evidence and the variety of ways people have connected it to be willing to change? In addition, one other question might also be worth asking. If I will not change my view because of what I hear or see, will I at least be open to acknowledge the issues are more complex than I might have previously appreciated? The second question may well be as important as the first.”

[Luke Seibert · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was a thorough, balanced, and helpful evaluation of the subject. Before reading, I wasn’t aware of how many views there are about Mark’s ending. For each perspective, the evidence is presented and rebuttals given against criticisms of that view. This allowed me to understand the relevant material, consider the evidence, and come to my conclusion. After reading, I feel more equipped to speak to the subject. Word of caution: this is an academic work and has a lot of cross-over with textual criticism. I find it fascinating, but if that’s not your cup of tea, just a heads up. So in summary, if you want to dive into the evidence about the disputed ending, this is an excellent resource.

[Rich · Rating 5 out of 5]

Helpful discussion of critical textual issues

[John Kight · Rating 5 out of 5]

Perspectives on the Ending of Mark: Four Views edited by David Alan Black is a tour de force into one of the most significant textual variants in the New Testament. Each of the chapters included in this volume originated from a conference entitled “The Last Twelve Verses of Mark: Original or Not,” held April 13-14, 2007, at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Wake Forest, North Carolina. For those familiar with the textual issues surrounding Mark 16:9-20, the enlisted contributors (Daniel Wallace, Maurice Robinson, J. Keith Elliott, and David Alan Black) inevitably stand within two major persuasions (as the title of the conference suggests) with varying degrees of distance between them.

Maurice Robinson and David Alan Black both argue that Mark 16:9-20 is the original ending of the Second Gospel. Still, of the two contributors, it is likely that the reader will find Robinson to have provided a much more persuasive presentation than Black. Robinson provides interaction with ancient sources concerning the Long Ending (LE), analyzes the vocabulary of the LE, displays an interesting set of parallels between various sections of the Second Gospel (1:32-39; 3:14-15; 6:7-13; 7:24-8:38) and the LE, and closes with fifteen points of conclusion concerning the originality of the LE. However, in my opinion, for many readers, while they may find the chapter by Robinson helpful, they will likely remain unconvinced by the external evidence witnessed in the earliest manuscripts.

Daniel Wallace and J. Keith Elliot both argue that Mark 16:9-20 is not the original ending of the Second Gospel. Similar to that witnessed above, I believe that the reader will find Wallace to have provided a much more persuasive presentation than Elliot. I would submit that the contribution by Wallace is worth admission alone. Wallace begins by delineating the inevitable existence of presuppositions when approaching this issue and provides a personal story of how his personal presuppositions had to be challenged before he was able to best analyze the data. The chapter by Wallace is also the most helpful chapter of the book by way of explanation of the textual issue. For Wallace, both the external and internal evidence suggest that the last twelve verses of Mark are indeed not original to the Second Gospel—a conclusion that Wallace skillfully guides the reader to recognize as the most likely scenario.

Perspectives on the Ending of Mark: Four Views concludes with a helpful summary by Darrell Bock. Indeed, Bock unashamedly sides with Wallace on the matter of the ending of Mark but does an excellent job evenhandedly outlining the implications of each of the preceding chapters. It must be stated here that the chapters by Black and Elliott are certainly worth reading, but are likely to find little outside adherence. In fact, in my opinion, this volume could have been more helpful had it actually eliminated Black and Elliott altogether and provided more interaction between Robinson and Wallace. The lack of direct interaction between the positions was a major downfall in my opinion, and had it been included, in my opinion, this volume would have been much better for the end user.

The lack of interaction that many readers have come to appreciate from the Perspective series is unfortunate—especially given the nature of the discussion and the inclusion of two peripheral views that could have been easily eliminated. Still, the contribution of Maurice Robinson and Daniel Wallace are well worth the cover price of this volume. If you are interested in textual criticism and/or looking to teach or preach from the Gospel of Mark, the issues detailed in this volume will need to be addressed, and I am confident that Perspectives on the Ending of Mark: Four Views edited by David Alan Black will provide you with much food for thought. It comes highly recommended!

I received a review copy of this book in exchange for an honest review. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255: “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.

[Justin Orman · Rating 4 out of 5]

I acquired this book about 5-8 years ago because the subject matter fascinated me. Its relevance, however, was such that I put off reading it for quite some time. It hardly falls into the category of a 'Must-Read', but for any who are curious about textual criticism in general or this textual variant in particular, it is an interesting read. The four essays each take a different position on the ending of Mark 16.

Daniel Wallace argues that Mark deliberately ended at verse 8 and that any verses beyond that represent additions to the text. I came into the book uncertain about what position I held, but seeing this one as a possibility. I felt Wallace adequately dealt with the proper questions involved and resolved them as satisfactorily as could be expected given the limits of hard facts we possess. While I don't say I am convinced that Mark ended his Gospel at 16:8, in the spirit of proper textual criticism, I will say that I view it as the most likely option given the facts available to us.

Maurice Robinson took the position that verses 9-20 are genuinely part of Mark. His essay is probably the second best, but In my estimation there was a wide gap between Wallace's and the other three. Robinson has no compelling argument for why verses 9-20 are not in some manuscripts. He also spends far too much time belaboring a point that everyone agrees with: The long ending was known and quoted at least by the end of the second century, and possibly a few decades earlier. His comparison of the beginning of Mark to the end (particularly his use of the disputed section) to illustrate what he believes is a chiasm was quite interesting. However, his failure to resolve the central question adequately (Why do some manuscripts lack any material after verse 8) irreparably damages his case.

The third perspective is J.K. Elliott's. His view is that the original ending was lost. I began his essay unconvinced and found myself even more disenchanted with his theory than when I began. Although I am conservative theologically, I don't necessarily reject the possibility of sections of God's Word being lost after the inspired autographs were penned (longer issue for another time), however Elliott's argument is problematic. Given how many variants we have in Mark 16, it is beyond belief that the supposed original ending could have been lost so early that no known copies exist today. It is not likely that there was enough time for the manuscript to wear out. Even more bizarre is his rambling and conspiratorial speculation that early scribes might have destroyed the ending because of some kind of rivalry between a Paul vs. Peter fan club of sorts.

David Alan Black's entry into the book addresses the distinction in language between Mark 1-16:8 and 16:9-20. His theory (which he eventually gets to after spinning a long and speculative narrative about the origins of the Gospels in the early church) briefly stated posits that Mark transcribed Peter's oral testimony about Jesus. However, Black suggests, Peter's sermons finished at 16:8. Why would Peter not talk about the resurrection? Because that fits Black's theory it would appear. Mark then, as Black argues, released the original narrative as Peter preached it but later decided to add a conclusion himself. The strength of this argument is that it accounts for the stylistic differences and the two major endings. The weakness is that it is largely speculation without evidence - as a theory there is little about it to make it especially likely.

Darrell Bock's closing summary might as well be written by Wallace since they hold the same perspective. Bock adds little new, although he rightly points out some of the weaknesses in the essays not written by Wallace. His footnote response to Elliott's theory on Peter is quite good, though.

The essays are not all equally good, but if the subject interests you, this book is probably as solid and balanced a treatment of the subject as you will find anywhere. Very much enjoyed.

[Brian Collins · Rating 3 out of 5]

Typically four views books allows each participant to state his case followed by brief responses from each of the other contributors. This four views book is unique in allowing only one perspective a rejoinder. Daniel Wallace presents the view that Mark ended his Gospel with verse 8. Maurice Robinson argues that Mark's Gospel originally included the longer ending. Keith Elliot posits that both the beginning and ending of Mark's Gospel were lost. The current beginning and the longer ending were replacements. David Alan Black makes the case that Mark himself added the longer ending to his Gospel at a later point than its first writing. Darrell Bock, who holds Wallace's view (indeed, who was instrumental in leading Wallace to this view according to Wallace's essay) concludes the volume by providing a rejoinder to the other three positions.

I thought that Wallace's essay was the best written of the four perspectives. However, I found his view (and Bock's) that Mark intended the Gospel to end at verse 8 less than convincing. The number of dissenters to this view is growing, and I did not find that Wallace dealt sufficiently with the cogent critiques of this position given elsewhere. Wallace also deferred much of the coverage of internal evidence to J. K. Elliot. Elliot, however, undermines his case by arguing (apart from any manuscript evidence) that the opening of Mark is secondary. He makes the case that the internal evidence indicates that Mark's opening is even less Markan than the Longer Ending. Since the evidence is strongly against the opening of Mark being secondary, Elliot ends up casting doubt on the validity of the claims that the Longer Ending could not have been written by Mark.

Black's essay was an outlier as it dealt primarily with the Synoptic problem. His solution is also fairly speculative.

I thought that Robinson's essay was also strong. Even apart from his majority text view, he provided a series of cogent arguments, dealing with external evidence (including early patristic evidence) and internal evidence. He did not deal with all of Wallace's arguments, however. This is one reason why it would have been better if each author had been allowed to respond to the others.

[Demetrius Rogers · Rating 4 out of 5]

It's pretty good when a book on textual-criticism turns out to be a thoroughly absorbing read. I could hardly put it down. A very helpful primer into the issues for and against the last 12 verses of The Gospel of Mark.

My only complaint is that the interaction between the positions - as is typical for these 'couterpoints' books - was lacking here. Darrell Bock presented the wrap-up chapter which was an attempt to respond to all 4 papers at once, but it quickly became apparent that it was merely a repeat of Daniel Wallace's position! So essentially that made for an uneven panel. Two response summaries would have been preferable.

At any rate, a very stimulating read. And something I will refer back to for years to come.

[Steve Husmann · Rating 4 out of 5]

There's a footnote that bothered me every time I saw it: "these verses not found in earliest manuscripts."

For 10-15 years now I've wondered what to do with those verses at the end of Mark, so this book was very thought provoking. Each chapter is written by a different author, with a different position and every chapter I start to swing to that authors position.

After reading the book, I'm not sure where I stand exactly on these 9 verses at the end of Mark, and yet my faith is richer for it. I realized that in the end, whatever the answer is, it doesn't shake my faith.

[Philip Taylor · Rating 3 out of 5]

More than one way to skin a cat. I like David Black's contribution the best - Mark 1:1 to Mark 16:8 was essentially Peter's oral presentations as he worked from Matthew and a yet to be published Luke. Mark then added a longer ending and hence both the short ending and long ending circulated in the early church. But in reality, I could be swayed either way depending on whatever expert I am listening to.

[Spencer · Rating 4 out of 5]

A helpful book that briefly examines different issues to the problem of Mark 16. They don't provide as much in depth discussion as one might hope and often address the issue more on hermeneutical and philosophical grounds than textual. Granted this is just a survey and those wanting to dive deeper should probably pick up some of the referenced works.

[Sem · Rating 4 out of 5]

I came close to giving it 3 stars after finishing Black's (very) weak and highly speculative contribution to this otherwise stimulating collection of essays. However, it's a useful starting point on the subject and the reader could easily skip Black.

[Steve Bauer · Rating 5 out of 5]

A well-balanced defense of both sides of the issue

If you're wondering why people promote the longer ending of Mark (or the shorter ending), this is the book for you. Especially for pastors and those acquainted with the NT Greek, this is a useful book.

[David Haines · Rating 4 out of 5]

I'm not a textual critic, but I thoroughly enjoyed reading this debate and comparing the different views in this debate. See my review on my blog in a couple of days.

[David Smithey · Rating 4 out of 5]

LE of Mark 16:9-20

Scholarly work, so it's not light reading. It's an interesting read. I'm not sure that I have dog in this hunt.

[Samuel · Rating 4 out of 5]

Solid summaries of the various views. Black's story was nice, but lacks any real evidence. Wallace is a good communicator. This debate isn't going to be resolved any time soon!